Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08204, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08204    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Smith, et al.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Crystal Re’Chelle Smith is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Crystal Re’Chelle Smith (“Defendant”). On September 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted and request for monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 09/07/23.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant on October 4, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.)  The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

While a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no such requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to the common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 [moving party must file declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed].)

Plaintiff’s Motion is accompanied by a request for judicial notice of the matters deemed admitted in Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, and this Court’s September 7, 2023 order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. The Court takes judicial notice of these facts pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549) [holding that the court may take judicial notice of matters that cannot be reasonably controverted, including “admissions and concessions.”].)

The admissions in the Request for Admissions directly contradict the general denial and affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer. The admissions admit that Defendant failed to drive with reasonable care. (Motion to Deem RFAs, Exh. 2, Request for Admission No. 2.) They also admit that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident with Plaintiff’s insured and as a result, Defendant caused the Plaintiff’s insured to incur damages. (Id. at Request for Admission Nos. 3-6.) The admissions admit that Defendant caused Plaintiff to incur damages of at least $15,774.50. (Id. at Request for Admission No. 7-8.) Finally, Defendant admits that the affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer lack merit and evidentiary support. (Id. at Request for Admission No. 9.)

By this Motion, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it served Defendant with Requests for Admissions that effectively establish of the truth of the allegations in the Complaint, as detailed above. The admissions establish the facts upon which Plaintiff based its Complaint and that Defendant has not alleged a defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the Answer.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Crystal Re’Chelle Smith is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.